There's a story in The Guardian from Ms. Moira Donegan; the article's title is: The U.S. Supreme Court just basically legalized bribery. This is a fascinating topic. In my Data Collection, when I analyzed the American democratic system, corruption was also listed as one of the scoring criteria. Among them, the bribery issue of a black justice in the United States is exciting to me; he is the second black justice, Clarence Thomas, in the history of the United States.
First, Moira Donegan's article, The U.S. Supreme Court, says that if you're rich enough, you can now pay bribes to state and local officials in exchange for them meeting your policy preferences or advancing your interests. You can give them lavish gifts, send them on vacation, or write them a check. You can do all of these things as long as cash, gifts, or other "tips" are offered after the service and not before - as long as the meaning and intent of those "tips" can be reasonably denied. This incident stems from the decision Kavanaugh wrote in Snyder v. United States. The court at the time held that the court held that "honorariums" - that is, gifts and payments after the fact - were not technically "bribes" and therefore not illegal. By changing the concept of rewards and bribes to gifts and thanks, they achieve the purpose of legally accepting bribes. It's like Clarence Thomas taking a bribe from the pro-Republican Harlan Crow. He did not accept cash directly, but he has received numerous gifts over the past 20 years. For example, Crowe gave away 20% worth of art (in the name of a friend), treated Thomas to annual vacations at private resorts in the Bohemian Jungle of California and the Adirondack Mountains of New York, and flew Thomas on private jets and private superyachts to Indonesia for free. A private jet and yacht ride would have cost more than half a million dollars. According to Crowe's tax filings, his foundation donated $105,000 to the Justice Thomas Portrait Fund at Yale Law School, Thomas's Alma mater. He also helped his mother renovate their ancestral home and paid for Thomas's nephew (Mark Martin) to attend two private universities. All of this seems to have nothing to do with money, but it takes money to do it all, and if discounted, it will be a considerable fortune. And it appears to be a donation between friends. However, it is in one direction, and the 'generous' friend does not seem to be without gain (in the long run and in the more profound interest).
Yet all this is happening in the country that prides itself on the banner of human democracy, the most accessible and rule-of-law: the United States. The fact that this happened to the chief justice in charge of the judiciary is puzzling and incomprehensible. The judges of the United States do not have a clear partisan position; they have the right to control the judiciary, which needs to be fair and clean. Contrary to expectations, the justices of the United States are appointed by the president and serve for life. First, he can be largely unrestrained and has the power of judicial interpretation. When problems happen to him, he will naturally try his best to clear his name, especially the legal redemption related to the justices, which is very strict and transparent. This is the case in the United States, Australia and many other countries, where the initial idea is that the justices are people of high standing who can restrain themselves. However, human nature is inherently evil at the beginning; everyone has both good and bad sides, and the occurrence of wrong sides can be reduced through the law's restriction. This was supposed to be the original purpose of the law and the rule of law, to create a red line to remind people not to cross it. The so-called belief should not give rise to privileges which are prone to corruption, and then even the power of interpretation is vested in them, which is not surprising. Importantly, this loophole is challenging to remedy because of the interests of all parties involved and the Constitution. The U.S. Congress passed a law that does not limit the amount of political contributions made to individuals, groups, and parties during elections. Far more restrictive than before, it is now completely open and openly 'bribe-taking'. "Bribery" and "bribery" put on a layer of legalization; all kinds of behaviour are jaw-dropping.
In the interest of time, I shall not dwell on the effects of corruption and the destruction of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. However, it can be imagined that such impact and destruction are tremendous and can quickly collapse the democratic ideas, institutions and societies accumulated over hundreds of years. I cannot help but wonder why bribery can be made public in a democratic society. Don't fool around with gifts and thank-yous between friends. We're not 3 years old. Looking at this formally, I believe that corruption is also one of the essential reasons for the ordinary democratic regression in today's democratic countries.
Moreover, suppose the problem of corruption is severe. In that case, it will do great harm not only to immediate interests but also to the development of the whole society and the construction of the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment